Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ACR MCP Server

ACR MCP Server

by hbkdad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_task

Run objectives using ACR's task engine, adjusting the quality tier to select between mock and preferred providers.

Instructions

Run an objective through ACR's task engine. Uses the zero-config mock provider unless min_quality_tier is raised (or Settings.default_min_quality_tier is configured) to prefer a configured Ollama/cloud provider instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "objective": "<objective>"
    },
    "name": "run_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectiveYes
min_quality_tierNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; the description mentions the mock provider behavior but fails to disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to data during execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, incomplete parameter descriptions, and no explanation of return values despite an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the description only alludes to min_quality_tier without defining it or the 'objective' parameter. It does not add meaningful meaning beyond the schema's property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb ('Run') and the resource ('objective through ACR's task engine'). The tool's purpose is distinct from sibling tools (search, fetch), making selection unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides context on provider selection based on min_quality_tier or default configuration, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools